Page 306 - Magistrates Conference 2019
P. 306

the right one.


                              The issue in the present case does not, however, now arise directly in the English

                              legislation since s 170(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 makes
                              it an offence for any person to be concerned in harbouring prohibited goods who

                              'does so with intent to defraud Her Majesty of any duty payable on the goods or to
                              evade any such prohibition or restriction with respect to the goods', thus giving

                              statutory effect to the result arrived at in Frailey v Charlton. This has not been

                              done in Jamaica and perhaps not elsewhere where the earlier English legislation
                              was taken as a model.”


               In R v. Cohen [1951] 1 All ER 203 Lord Goddard, at page 203, held that:


                              “Apart from an intent to defraud, with which we will deal separately, the offence

                              consists in knowingly harbouring uncustomed goods, and, in our opinion, that

                              means that the accused knowingly harboured goods and also knew that they were
                              uncustomed. To prove a conscious harbouring it would usually be enough to show

                              that goods which were subject to duty were found in the possession of the
                              accused. If they are found in his house, warehouse or other place under his

                              control, that would establish a prima facie case that he knowingly harboured

                              them, though, no doubt, he could rebut this by proving that he did not know of
                              their presence, for instance, by showing that someone had “dumped” them there

                              without his knowledge or privity. Once it is proved that he knowingly harboured
                              goods subject to duty, s 259 throws on him the onus of proving that the goods are,

                              in fact, customed. To do this he would have to prove that the duties had actually

                              been paid, or, at least, that they had been declared and that the customs officers,
                              in the exercise of a discretion which, as  is well known, they are allowed, had

                              permitted the goods to enter. The latter case would probably seldom arise and
                              could only occur in the case of a small amount of spirits, tobacco, jewellery or the

                              like, and we need not deal further with this.”




                                                                                                 Page 16 of 21
   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311